Meta-review Guidelines

As an AC, we trust you to make a reasonable recommendation based on reasonable bases and to clearly and thoroughly convey this recommendation and reasoning behind it to the authors. We recommend that your meta-review contain the following sections, and hasat least 100 words. You will have an AC buddy, so you should read the meta-reviews from your partner ACs and give them feedback for any cases you think could need a second opinion.  

1. A concise description of the submission’s main content (scientific claims and findings) based on your own reading and reviewers’ characterization. Ideally this description should contain both what have been discussed in the submission and what are missing from the submission.
2. A concise summary of discussion. Unlike other conferences in which there is only a single round of back-and-forth between reviewers and authors, ICLR distinguishes itself by providing three weeks of discussion. These weeks of discussion not only serve the purpose of decision making but also to contribute scientifically to the submission. We thus encourage the AC to summarize the discussion in the meta-review. In particular, it is advised that the AC lists the points that were raised by the reviewers, how each of these points was addressed by the authors and whether you as the AC found each point worth consideration in decision making.
3. Your recommendation and justification. The meta-review should end with a clear indication of your recommendation. Your recommendation must be justified based on the content and discussion of the submission (i.e., the points you described above.)